REBECCA KIK V JOHN-CHRISTOPHER SBRACCIA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
REBECCA KIK and ROBERT KIK, individually,
and as Personal Corepresentatives of the
Estate of SHARON ANN LEELANI KIK,
deceased,
FOR PUBLICATION
October 10, 2006
9:05 a.m.
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v
JOHN-CHRISTOPHER SBRACCIA, KINROSS
CHARTER TOWNSHIP EMS, and KINROSS
CHARTER TOWNSHIP,
Defendants-Appellants.
No. 256419
Chippewa Circuit Court
LC No. 04-7213-NI
Official Reported Version
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Cavanagh, Smolenski, Zahra, Fort Hood, Schuette, and Borrello, JJ.
BORRELLO, J.
This conflict panel was convened to resolve an inconsistency between the vacated portion
of this Court's prior opinion in Kik v Sbraccia, 268 Mich App 690; 708 NW2d 766 (2005) (Kik
I), vacated in part 268 Mich App 801 (2005), and this Court's earlier decision in Wesche v
Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 267 Mich App 274; 705 NW2d 136 (2005). In accordance with MCR
7.215 (J)(1), the panel in Kik I was required to follow the precedent of Wesche, which held that
loss of consortium claims are not included in the motor vehicle exception to governmental
immunity found in MCL 691.1405 and that such claims were therefore barred by governmental
immunity. Were it not for Wesche and MCR 7.215(J)(1), the panel in Kik I would have affirmed
the decision of the lower court that damages for derivative claims were available in an action
brought pursuant to the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405.
-1-
The conflict at issue involves whether damages for derivative claims such as loss of
consortium are available in actions brought pursuant to the motor vehicle exception. MCL
691.1405. In Wesche, a panel of this Court held that because loss of consortium claims do not
encompass bodily injury or property damage, they are not included in the motor vehicle
exception to governmental immunity. Wesche, supra at 278-279. Therefore, this Court affirmed
the trial court's ruling that the plaintiff wife's loss of consortium claim was barred by
governmental immunity. Id. at 279-280. In Kik I, this Court held that the panel's decision in
Wesche was inapplicable to wrongful death cases, Kik I, supra at 706-707, 712 n 42; therefore,
Wesche did not apply to plaintiffs' claim for loss of society and companionship for the death of
their daughter. However, the panel in Kik I concluded that the claim for loss of consortium
brought by plaintiff husband against defendants Kinross Charter Township and Kinross Charter
Township EMS (but not Sbraccia, the driver of the ambulance, individually), relating to the
injuries suffered by plaintiff wife in the accident, did fall squarely within the scope of Wesche.
Id. at 707. In Kik I, the panel opined "that Wesche was incorrectly decided" and stated that "were
we not obligated by MCR 7.215(J) to follow Wesche, we would reach a different
conclusion . . . ." Id. at 711. However, because it was constrained to do so by MCR 7.215(J),
this Court followed Wesche and reversed the trial court's denial of summary disposition
regarding plaintiff husband's claim for loss of consortium arising out of his wife's injuries and
remanded the matter to the trial court for entry of summary disposition in favor of the township
and the township's EMS on that claim. Id. at 711-712.
Following due consideration of the analyses of the competing viewpoints regarding this
conflict issue in Wesche and Kik I, we resolve the conflict in accordance with the panel's opinion
in Kik I. We are persuaded by the panel's reasoning in part III of the Kik I opinion and adopt its
-2-
reasoning and analysis as our own. We therefore expressly adopt and reinstate part III of the
panel's opinion in Kik I and overrule part III of the Wesche opinion.
We direct the trial court to vacate its order granting summary disposition in favor of the
township and the township's EMS with respect to plaintiff husband's claim for loss of consortium
arising from plaintiff wife's injuries.
Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
Cavanagh, Smolenski, and Fort Hood, JJ., concurred with Borrello, J.
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.